It means that people who care about what is really true believe without exception that the merits of every belief should be investigated.

People who ''count'' are not biased by religious beliefs. [i read it wrong the first time]

(removed)

1) The author thinks that when studying any subject, religious matters should be left aside. without deference :- pay no heed to. without reference :- do not mention. 2) He/she thinks those intellectual people who don't agree with this "do not count". 3) The author is biased in favor of the point of view in (1), and not open to other opinions.

If you consider yourself intelligent then you can have a say in any matter whether or not others agree.

The sentence is not really possible to interpret without guessing at its meaning, because it is so badly constructed. For example, it contains a double negative. Actually, almost a *triple* negative. lol All important and clever people agree that everything in the universe should be open to investigation without any influence from religious dogma. That is about the best I can do. Who was guilty of writing it?

Obviously not a modern question, but from a much older time - let's break it down into it's component parts - 1) All intellectual people who count 2) Take it for granted that 3) There is no subject in heaven or earth 4) which ought not to be investigated 5) without any deference or reference to theological assumptions. So, he starts off by putting himself in a position of intellectual high ground by indicating that in his estimation there are those who don't count. Who would these people who don't count be...? The answer to this will be revealed upon further explanation. Of those who do count, they take something for granted, which he is about to tell us. That there is no subject in heaven or earth - the phrase "in heaven and earth" is simply emphasis of how broad these subjects range. In the grammar of the question it can be left out without affecting the main message itself. So, these people who count take for granted that no subject (idea, or concept) Which ought not to be investigated - ought not is old english for "should not"... So, "Which should not be investigated" without any deference or reference to theological assumptions is interesting as there are two components here, deference, and theological assumption, which need to be understood. Deference is "the tendency to yield to the will of others". Theological assumptions are also referred to as "dogma". These theological assumptions are ideas and concepts which are proclaimed to be true without any proof. This is why he refers to them as "assumptions". Where do these theological ideas come from which he refers to, and who is he specifically taking aim at here...? Theology being the study of God, he is speaking of religious scholars and authorities, or if you would like, he's talking about those who believe in any kind of religion, in general. So, when you look at each part of his premise, what he's saying, essentially is this - There is nothing which should not be investigated without preconceived ideas about Gods part in it.* or Everything should be considered without religious bias coming into it if you want to learn the unvarnished truth about it.* or even - all subjects should be investigated fully on their own if you would learn the truth about them, without preconceived ideas about Gods role in their existence entering into it.* *...and of course, everyone who is intelligent knows this... ;-)